Talk:Herbert Dingle/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

conference paper(?) without claimed contents

The article referred to a paper that apparently is just a conference journal paper (without refereeing). If so, it should be replaced by a comment of a paper of higher quality. On top of that, I could not even find a discussion of Dingle's claim in that paper! Thus I remove that reference. Harald88 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it to be a little hard to document that Dingle's claims are no linger debated with an article that documents them, but if you can find a retrospective on the business that would be nice. There are two items in that article that IMO merit it's inclusion:

1. A statememt that special relativity is not now contested "except by cranks and crackpots", which while too POV for direct inclusion here does IMO state the general viewpoitn within the field. Certainly debate about Dingle's claims easily falls within the scope of that sentense.
2. A discussion of the twin paradox which very much shows why Dingle was wrong.

In addition, it also has that excellent quote that had been placed into this article but which I found to be too POV for my taste as part of Wikipedia. As for the issue of this being a non peer reviewed conference:

1. The Séminaire Poincaré is a seminar, to which speakers are invited.
2. The author is Clifford Will who is regarded as a leading expert on relativity and especially the testing of the theory.

The bottom line is that I find it hard to consider an invited talk given by a respected speaker not to be a reliable source. In addition, the removal of the citation left an important sentese for the article unsourced, which resulted in its removal. I will be restoring both. --EMS | Talk 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is sensible to take every utterance of a respected person, at face value. Respected persons arent always right. From your point of view, Dingle was once a respected person, but you dont consider him to be right. Mc Crea was respected throughout his life, and indeed was knighted, but I dont see anyone jumping to the defence of his refutation of Dingle's argument, everyone seems to be avoiding it. From which, I infer that he was indeed wrong in his claim. The article/seminar you mention, as far as I can see, has been published only at 'arxiv.org', is this considered to be a reliable source? I dont think unpublished work should be allowed on this page, its asking for trouble. If any unpublished work is disputed it should be removed, and replaced with something that has been peer-reviewed and published, then no-one can dispute it. Swanzsteve 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one overview paper on relativity does not mention Dingle, doesn't support the claim of that sentence. Thus it remains unsourced even with a low-quality source such as a conference paper (Clifford Will is certainly not the author!). And it's just as easy to cite peer-reviewed journal papers that partly agree with Dingle (and even Einstein, who had a similar symmetry objection against SRT as Dingle, he just formulated it slightly differently).

Again, that sentence must be rephrased into one that can be sourced; for example either with a link to to Chang's paper, because he discusses this point (for example write: "Nowadays the controversy has largely been forgotten by the pysics community.") and/or to an article about time dilation (for example write. "Nowadays Dingle's objections against SRT are rarely mentioned as inequal "aging" has been established by experiments"). Harald88 07:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Harald - You are a much better bibloigrapher than I am. In this case, the point is more important than the wording. If you can put together something which along the lines you describe above, then please do so. It all sounds like an improvement to me. --EMS | Talk 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I ran out of time but I'll do something along those lines tomorrow, and you can or others can of course improve it. Harald88 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed thread

EMS, the idea that a year is an absolute concept based on the complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun has obviously hit a raw nerve with you. You have completely deleted it from the discussion pages. Deleting from the article is one thing, but deleting from the discussion pages shows that you are scared of the truth. It is a totally appropriate thing to mention because it undermines the whole concept of time dilation and proves that Dingle was right. (217.43.69.32 12:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

1. Your personal view of reality adds nothing constructive to this discussion, and does not even relate directly to this article.
2. That comment was being spammed across mutiple talk pages, which is a form of disruption.
3. In a format like this noone is conceding anything unless that say that they are.

The only reason that I am permitting this text to stay up is so that others are aware of the deletion. IMO, your have shown your view of time to be totally Newtonian and therefore incompatible with relativity. Finally, once again, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. This page is for discussing the associated article and not for determining whether Dingle was right or wrong. --EMS | Talk 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The current article contains the claim that

Dingle's claim about special relativity was never accepted by the mainstream physics community, for which it is no longer an active area of debate.

This italicized line is backed up by a source, which states that:

On the 100th anniversary of special relativity, we see that the theory has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots.

I'd say that the repeated deletion of this claim, and it's source, by 217.43.69.32 constitute vandalism. If this pattern of behavior reoccurs I will request that the IP address 217.43.69.32 be blocked from editing wikipedia. --Starwed 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Starwed - this source has been challenged by many people. It has never been peer-reviewed or published. We should ALL stick to undisputed sources, or we will be back to square one. Swanzsteve 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Remove False Statement

Please remove the false statement about Dingle's claims not being actively debated. That is clearly false since it is currently being debated here. There is an ongoing active debate about Dingle's conclusions!!!72.64.62.72 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question states that

Dingle's claim about special relativity was never accepted by the mainstream physics community, for which it is no longer an active area of debate.

You are not part of the "mainstream physics community". Instead you are able to debate the issue here because this is a open web site. Any refutation of this statement must be based on discussions in the mainstream physics literature. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If we can source it properly (and such a source need not be totally reliable but it must be stable and from outside of Wikipedia and USENET), I can support some wording to the effect that Dingle's views continues to attract supporters just preceeding this sentense. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following paper shows that your contention is false. The twins paradox continues to be debated and your claim that Dingle was wrong is still unresolved. Twin Paradoxes72.64.62.72 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymo, of course you can't possibly be aware of this, but the place on which this reference resides is, what is called in the trade, a well known crackpot pit. If you want to be ridiculed, please continue to provide pointers to their junk. Now, try to remember this, so next time we can count on your being aware of this, so we don't have to repeat this warning. DVdm 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. You are making a biased judgement. I reccomend the following as more evidence of an ongoing debate. But according to you there is no debate, and hence no reason to publish any books about it.NewPhysics For Old72.64.62.72 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bravo :-) DVdm 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DVdm, forget about wikipedia policy on personal insults. I would say from reading your above paragraph that you are totally corrupt. 72.64.62.72 supplied you with a reference in a peer reviewed journal. That is perfectly acceptable for wikipedia purposes. I have seen many references that I would have like to have deleted but which have been upheld on those very grounds.

You are now denying the right of anybody to present a reference if it upsets your own private research. Your objections to the above reference will plain simple incomprehensible gobbledygook. You are corrupt and you are scared of what Dingle has exposed. You have your own dumb private theories and Dingle is a thorn in your neck. And your latest reply 'Bravo' shows that you are an arrogant idiot. I suppose you'll be flashing the red card for abuse next. It's the kind of cheap tactic that you would resort too. You twist the rules yourself and throw the book at everybody else. (217.43.69.32 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Anon - I won't be as derisive as DVdm, but the publisher for bith of these citations (C. Roy Keys) is not one which is respcted in mainstream physics community. In fact, those citations are so out of line that they do more to make the point of the sentense than to refute it. The last time a journal like Nature was willing to publish stuff like that was when Dingle was alive. Once again, I am willing to see language to the effect that Dingle has supporters even today in the article, but the sentense is accurate given the "mainstream physics community" qualification and I 100% support is retention. --EMS | Talk 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, what you are effectively saying is that the twin paradox is no longer debated amongst people who support Einstein's theories of relativity but is only discussed by people who don't support Einstein's theories of relativity. (217.43.69.32 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

You've got it! Also note that the mainstream physics community 100% supports relativity.

BTW - That was an interesting compromise attempt. I will thank you for the effort but not the result. However about taking my suggestion above and trying to add referenced language to the effect that some discussion still exists, even as the sentense in question makes it clear that said discussion in not part of the phsyics mainstream? --EMS | Talk 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is DVdm doing on this page? as far as I can see he has made no contribution whatsoever. He just wants to plug his own "refutation" of Dingle's example, and tell everyone how 'brilliant' he is. Swanzsteve 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Relativity is still being debated, albeit indirectly, in that many in mainstream physics question the validity of the Big Bang model and Black Hole Theory, both of which were derived from relativity. Swanzsteve 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I call this grasping at straws, as those issues do not relate to the correctness of special relativity (SR). Let me put it to you this way: I too question whether general relativity (GR) is 100% correct, but I don't question the validity of SR nor do I question the overall fundamentals of GR itself (of which the validity of SR is one). The same applies in the scientific community overall: There are questions being raised about GR, but not about SR. GR can be wrong, but even so it is fully expected that whatever replaces it (if it is replaced) will maintain the local correctness of SR as a tenet. (My own personal original research is one example of something that does that.)

The issues raised by Dingle are no longer being debated in the mainstream scientific community. The big bang and black hole controversies (which are not very active either BTW) do not change that at all. --EMS | Talk 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I didnt specify Special Relativity. However, Einstein did say, I believe, that if any part SRT or GRT is found to be false, the whole thing collapses. I just wanted to point out that Relativity Theory is still an active area of debate, albeit indirectly Swanzsteve - 213.107.15.23 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would advise looking up that quote. Certainly if any part of SR is falsified, GR is also falsified. However, the inverse is not true: SR does not depend on GR. In any case, you have made a point that I do agree with, even if I don't see it as being relevant to this article or the statement in question.

I keep suggesting the addition of wording that even today there are still some poeple who support Dingle's views in front of this contested statement. I admit that making it clear right afterwards that you all are not part of the mainstream scientific community does not put you all in the best light. However, that still would be a place where the citations given above could be used even though they are not exactly reliable sources in a purely academic/scientific context. --EMS | Talk 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, on your own page, you openly admit that your long term aim is to have your own private research published on wikipedia. You are not mainstream. You are very determined to negate Dingle's message and meanwhile pretend that you are merely a dedicated and upright upholder of wikipedia's rules and regulations. But you don't even uphold those regulations correctly. If somebody was only interested in upholding wikipedia policy, they wouldn't be so determined to try to undermine Dingle. A neutral editor would simply allow the facts to be presented.

You are being too keen here and your interventions are purely for your own selfish reasons. You know that when STR falls, your flat back general relativity will fall too. (217.43.69.32 10:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

You seem to have my agenda backwards. I am working to see my ideas become part of mainstream physics first, at which point someone else will feel fit to do a Wikipedia article on it. Until that time, I feel no need to try to impose my own non-mainstream views here. That is an example that people like you would do well to follow. As for allowing the facts to be presented: That is exactly what I am doing. --EMS | Talk 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the statement that needs to be removed implies a conclusion that Dingle was wrong. This was challenged, and the resulting debate here shows some confusion regarding what is and is not supposed to be scientific knowledge. The assertion was made that there is no debate. That was shown to be false, but was disputed by the claim that the cited references were not acceptable for Wikipedia. The following link provides evidence that there is debate about the correctness of special relativity and that this debate is carried on in a peer reviewed journal by physicists. Therefore, there seems to be bias of unsubstantiated opinion that needs to be corrected by Wikipedia. The following link shows that the validity of relativity and the twins paradox solution continue to be debated within the scientific community.Physics Essays. I think that Wikipedia editors need to become better informed about current scientific research in relativity.72.64.62.72 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You have pointed us to an article title on testing the twin paradox. There may be no debate on whether special relativity is correct, but noone is going to oppose a novel and well conceived experiment to test it. After all, it is nature that has the last word in physics, and we will learn something one way or the other from such an experiment.

As for the statement implying the Dingle was wrong: Of course it does! You also claim that there is an ongoing debate, but every time you all produce evidence to supposedly support that assertion it is either non-mainstrean or is something like this essay which only mentions the twin paradox instead of debating it.

Your views are as mainstream as my original research is, and I call on you and the other anti-relativists to respect that. --EMS | Talk 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following two links provide further evidence that the Paradox continues to be discussed.[1]and[2]72.64.62.72 15:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep posting non-mainstream un-peer-reviewed articles as evidence that special relativity is still the subject of debate in the mainstream physics community. It really doesn't make any sense. -- SCZenz 15:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon - The sentense in question will not be removed. I have offerred you all a chance to add wording that Dingle's views are accepted today by some people, which is what those citations are showing, but you all keep ignoring that. IMO, your goal is to make Dingle sound like a unsung and oppressed hero of physics. That he is not. I am willing to help temper and refine this article, but refusing to make the current state of Dingle's claims obvious is dishonest and unfair to the readers of this article. --EMS | Talk 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the following referenced journal. It is peer reviewed. Did you not read the information? It includes numerous papers discussing the validity of relativity as well as discussing the twins paradox and the Dingle debate. I repeat that the following link shows that the validity of relativity and the twins paradox solution continue to be debated within the scientific community.Physics Essays. I think that Wikipedia editors need to become better informed about current scientific research in relativity.72.64.62.72 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which paper has a discussion about Dingle? I don't see it. He had a number of issues, some of which are still discussed now and then (e.g. the twin paradox). I do think that that fact is compatible with the new (sourced) phrasing that I just put in. And as EMS said, there is nothing against adding another reference to show that still some discussion is going on. In any case, the time of "heated debates" is over. Harald88 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No Harald. The heated debates have been censored in the same way as wikipedia are currently trying to censor them. (217.43.69.32 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

From the Physics Essay site:

The Journal’s mandate is to publish rigorous and methodological examinations of past, current, and advanced concepts, methods and results in physics research.

As this journal is happy to examine past concepts, it is little wonder that it will print articles about the twin paradox controversy or even questioning special relativity. Just look at the title: Physics Essays. This journal may be peer-reviewed, but it is not respected, and does not even claim to be a source of current cutting-edge reasearch articles. [Wikipedia policy is in need of an update in this regard, as I have found some very marginal jounrals that use peer review (or at least claim to), while a few top-rate journals (such as Nature) make all of their editorial decisions in-house.]

IMO, you are being deceptive and dishonest here. You keep treating any debate of relativity as being done within the mainstream scientific community. That is not the case, and your inability to find a respected mainstream source in which any doubts about the validity of special relativity are being expressed to be evidence of that. --EMS | Talk 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK So you are stating that this journal is not within the policy as being a reliable source? Why dont you publish a list of what you think is acceptable and we can go from there. But you guys are so far beyond anything that is reasonable or sensible that you are bodering upon being just plain silly and stupid in your arguments. Physics Essays is a respected scientific journal. You are merely demonstrating that you are being ridiculous. Please, I beg you, tell me what you will accept. Please!!72.64.62.72 20:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no objection to include a reference to "some occasional essays", as long as they clearly refer to Dingle's objections instead of inference by a Wikipedia editor. And note that the cited paper by Chang happens to already be one (published in a philosophy journal though). Harald88 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the physics essay page there are several articles questioning some part of SR:

The Persistent Problem of Special Relativity

Superluminal Paradox in Special Relativity

Investigation of Special Relativity and an Alternative Explanation of the Speed of Light

Refutation of Another Seeming Refutation of Special Relativity

The Normalization Problem in Special Relativity

Correcting the Flaw in Special Relativity That Leads to the Twin Paradox

It seems there is still some debate on it. So, what is wrong with the Physics Essays Journal? It seems pretty harmless to put a line in the article saying that SR, is still being discussed, but to a lesser extent. 213.107.15.23 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Physics Essays does not reflect the mainstream, amd as best I can tell it is not interested in doing so, but instead in being a tamer and more thoughtful version of USENET. As someone trying to get my original research published in a respectable journal, that is one journal that I absolutely will not submit to.

Try going to a convention of physicists and see how many anti-relativists you find, especially amongst those who work in the areas of astophysics, theoretical physics, and high energy physics. I won't say that they are totally non-existant, but they are a very small minority and they are not respected overall. --EMS | Talk 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"not respected", no wonder they keep their mouths shut, if they say anything they get kicked out of the club. No wonder you wont acknowledge that McCrea's refutation was deeply flawed - it contained such an elementary error that even a Justice-for-Dingle supporter could find it :-). You should try to get a paper published in Physics Essays, see if they accept it. Let us know what happens Swanzsteve 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The main question remains unanswered. Is Physics Essays an acceptable reference source? I beleive all peer reviewed journals must be. So that means Aperion is also a valid source. Then it becomes a question of what other respected journnals are also not acceptable. Hence, there is a need to clearly state your policy. I suspect the policy is this: the journal is acceptable if if says what we want and unacceptable otherwise. That is what you are saying editors. Electrodynamicist 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's a question of having respected physicists who are experts on the particular subject matter doing the reviews an editing. -- SCZenz 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, SCZenz, those physicists who are doing the reviews will not want to permit anything that clashes with their own private theories. They will use their power to block new ideas that they don't agree with or which they didn't think up themselves. (217.43.69.32 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

You are basically admiting that your policy is, to include in the Dingle article only those opinions which agree with yours. Opinions which differ are to be removed from the Dingle article, because you will by definition agrue that anyone who disagrees with your opinion can not be a respected physicist. Is that not your policy opinion?Electrodynamicist 12:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An Argument about an Argument

What we are witnessing here is an argument about whether or not an argument exists. Those who are arguing in favour of Dingle are being told by those who are arguing against Dingle that there is no argument about the matter.

We are then being told by the anti-Dingle editors that as there is no argument, that this fact must be inserted into the main article such as to reinforce their own opinion that Dingle was wrong.

There clearly is an argument. There is the very argument that Dingle and McCrea were arguing about in the first place and it has never been resolved. Dingle pointed out that Einstein's special theory of relativity was illogical because it implies that two cocks moving apart from each other must both go slower than each other. The very basic fact that time is a measure of periodic motions, such as the Earth orbiting the Sun (one year), should be sufficient grounds upon which to make it obvious that Dingle was right.

I'm not saying that we should stamp 'Dingle was Right' over the article. I am saying that we should state the facts about Dingle's claim, and that he had opponents, but that we don't need to make unsubstantiated claims to the extent that the subject is no longer debated in mainstream physics. (217.43.69.32 17:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

There is no argument about this issue in the mainstream physics community, and discussion in places like Wikipedia, UNENET, and the publications of C. Roy Keys does not change that. Kindly note for once that this statement is very narrowly defined. It does not claim that there is no discussion going on at all, but rather that amongst mainstream physicists it is not an issue. --EMS | Talk 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that there is no argument about this issue in the mainstream physics community? (217.43.69.32 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

There is no "debate" about it anymore. On one point you are right however. It was stressed by Chang (you might say of the "mainstream philosophy-of-science community" ;-)) that the argument has never been resolved. According to Chang: "The controversy ended with neither a consensus nor a clear refutation of either side" and "It merely fizzled out". It will be good to include that conclusion in the article as it is expressed by a relatively neutral observer of the debate. Harald88 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Harald - Don't let the article lose track of the fact that Dingle's claim is not taken seriously at all today in the mainstream scientific community.

To the anon - I know that you cannot believe that such is really the case given what you call the "obvious contradiction" of each clock being time dilated with respect to the other. Without trying to describe relativity theory to you (which unforutantely is a lost cause anyway) all that I can say is that there is much more the relativity than time dilation. It is the whole from which time dilation springs that is self-consistent. --EMS | Talk 19:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, can you explain that 'whole from which time dilation springs' in detail. All I can see is the Earth moving around the Sun and defining one year. That complete orbit must be an absolute fact for every observer in the universe. So whatever it is that dilates in Einstein's theories, it is not 'time' as the common man understands it. (217.43.69.32 19:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

I have already done way too much of attempting that above, and it is irrlevant to this article anyway. Who was Dingle? What did he argue? What became of his claims? Those are the issue to be dealt with here. The questions "Was Dingle right?" and "How is mutual time dilation not a contradiction in relativity?" are irrelevant. I hate to say this, but you lack a framework on which to discuss relativity. I strongly advise taking a year-long college level physics course (for physics majors) if you want to understand relativity. That will introduce you to the rigous foundation laid down for Newtonian physics on which relativity is built, as well as covering relativity towards the end of the school year. In the meantime, please remember that Wikipedia is not a on-line university. --EMS | Talk 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, I would advise you to do the very same thing. I think that you might benefit from taking a year-long college level physics course (for physics majors) if you want to understand relativity. That will introduce you to the rigorus foundation laid down for Newtonian physics on which relativity is built, as well as covering relativity towards the end of the school year. The reason that I know this is because I did it some years back and I can highly recommend it.

Meanwhile, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I never even tried to state on the main article that Dingle was right. I merely tried to remove inuendos that Dingle was wrong. (217.43.69.32 09:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

The argument that the mainstream physics community does not debate this issue is an irrelevant red herring, and demonstrates continued bias and determination to block non-biased discussion of the Dingle issue. The editors so called "mainstream physics" journals do not discuss foundational issues by policy definition. They relegate discussion of them to respected journals that specifically address these issues. The editions then label these journals as "not mainstream" so they can be ignored as not respected. The argument by the editors is an absurd one that demonstrates that they are ignorant of the facts and wish to remain so. Further progress is not possible until the biased editors are barred from editing this page. Electrodynamicist 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "mainstream physics" means university-trained experts on the relevant subjects. It is of the utmost relevance to what we present on Wikipedia, lest we give undue weight to an extremely small number of people with dissenting views, and who often have their formal training in subjects other than the one at hand. The journals of "foundational issues" you discuss are not, in fact, respected by trained physicists. -- SCZenz 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon - Unless I am mistaken, you are the same person whom under a slightly different IP address above stated that you found that your lecturers did not understand relativity, but instead "only parroted the implications". That does not sound like a introductory course for physics majors to me, but instead what you would expect from a course for non-majors looking to satisfy either they curiousity or a distribution requirement. Then again, I majored in physics at a small college and at least got shown the Lorentz transformations and taught how to use them in freshman physics. (The Lorentz transformations are the foundation of relativity theory, from which phenomena such as time dilation can be inferred. The describe how to transform the view in one frame of reference to that of another frame in relativity.)

Getting back OT, it is very relevant to this topic to note that Dingle's views about relativity are not generally accepted, and that in the mainstream physics community such acceptance is all but non-existant. That is an "innuendo" that IMO must be present. I agree that having text to the effect of "Dingle was wrong and here is why" lacks NPOV and therefore is inappropriate. However, the fact the this Dingle's ideas are not approved of is good and useful information for the reader to have. That does not mean that Dingle was wrong, just that he is considered to have been wrong. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz, the journal entitled 'Galilean Electrodynamics' was started by a physics professor at the University of Connecticut and he did alot of the early peer reviewing.

I have read articles in both Nature and Galilean Electrodynamics. I find some of the articles in each journal to be interesting. I have also read alot of total nonsense in both journals. Total nonsense does get passed by editors in higly respected peer review journals such as Nature as well as in the journals that you don't rate very highly. Likewise with good articles.

I don't think that you have a case for distinguishing between peer review journals. If wiki policy is that a source must be in a peer reviewed journal, then that has to apply to all peer reviewed journals. (217.43.69.32 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Reminder on the purpose of the talk page

Can I remind people on both sides that this talk page cannot be used for arguing about relativity, but only discussing how to improve the article? I know the temptation is strong, but this really isn't usenet. -- SCZenz 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

SCZenz, thanks for the reminder. I think we were all already aware of this. The discussions above have been consistently on the theme of whether or not anti-Dingle inuendos should be included in the main article.

I notice from reading the discussion that there seems to be a tendency amongst anti-Dingle editors to breach the wikipedia rules and cite references that are not peer reviewed while at the same time denying peer reviewed references that have been cited by pro-Dingle editors, on the grounds that the journals in question don't have a high enough status in their opinion. (217.43.69.32 11:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Let me put it this way: It is a little hard to take seriously a "peer review" done by your fellow anti-relativists. As for us anti-Dingle people not obeying the same rules: Kindly be specific. I am willing to back you up when you are right. --EMS | Talk 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, the argument doesn't come down to which university a person attended or which journal a reference is in. (217.43.69.32 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

I would disagree on both counts. For the university issue, I remind you that this discussion should not be about whether Dingle was right, but rather about whether he is considered to have been right. Only in this self-selected venue is there a substantial minority of anti-relativists present who would claim that Dingle was right. I suspect that the course taken is the issue and not the university BTW, but you cannot judge relativity based on what you were told by a bunch of people who admited their incompetence when questioned. Grab a good textbook such as Rindler's Introduction to special relativity and work through it yourself is my advice now.

As for the journal: It makes a huge difference. Show me where special relativity is being contested in Physical Review D (or any current Physical Review journal), Science, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, or even the American Journal of Physics (AJP). BTW, AJP is the most likely place to find current material related to Dingle as it is for physics teachers and therefore articles which deal with misconceptions such as the one Dingle had are quite relevant to it and its audience. There are also numerous other relevant jounals but they most are either secondary or so highly specialized that articles must assume the correctness of relativity to be publishable in them. (The ones named are general science journals that would be very interested in it if you could show that relativity is wrong.) Conference proceedings and books published by the same publishers as the above named journals are also considered to be reliable sources. On the other hand, publications like Aperion are not held in high esteem (as evidence in part by its being a red link at this time).

BTW - This is not simple snobbery. Those jounrals have a long histories and a good track records of publishing cutting edge research and excellent analyses. --EMS | Talk 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, all that has been established by this discussion is that there is a need to bar certain biased editors from editing this page because they have a preconceived notion of what the result of the debate was, and not of the actual facts of it. They have stated that they dont read journals in which such facts can be obtained and they falsely state that such facts are contained in sources which are outside of Wikipedia policy. So they should not be allowed to further participate in this discussion or edit the Herbert Dingle page.71.251.191.132 15:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

EMS, you are trying to delude yourself that anti-relativists haven't studied the problem as deeply as you have. You're trying too hard to reason that perhaps anti-relativits weren't taught properly or that perhaps they didn't take the correct courses at university.

It never seems to occur to you that they might have realized the simple fact that a year is a year for all clocks. When the Earth returns to the position that it was at one year ago, that will be an absolute fact for every clock in the universe.

It has got nothing to do with who spoke to what university lecturer or what any university lecturer knew or didn't know.

You are the one that has got it totally wrong. Dingle was right. (217.43.69.32 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

Dingle's View on Special Relativity

There is a lot of talk on here about Dingle's view on special relativity, not always accurate.

Here is a quote from the Introduction to his book:-

It would naturally be supposed that the point at issue, even if less esoteric than it is generally supposed to be, must still be too subtle and profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it. On the contrary, it is of the most extreme simplicity. According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response. The question is left by the experimenters to the mathematical specialists, who either ignore it or shroud it in various obscurities, while experiments involving enormous physical risk go on being performed. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this question is exactly what it appears to be, with every word and phrase bearing its ordinary, generally understood, meaning; it is not a profoundly complicated question, artificially simplified to bring it within the scope of the non-scientific reader's intelligence. It is presented here in its full scientific reality, and the ordinary reader is as fully competent to understand whether a proffered answer is in fact an answer or an evasion as is the most learned physicist or mathematician — though, of course, he may not be able to judge whether the suggested answer is true or not.

"Science at the Crossroads", H.Dingle, p.17

and from the chapter, 'The Origin of the Controversy', pp.45-6

THE ARGUMENT

According to the special theory of relativity, two similar docks, A and B, which are in uniform relative motion and in which no other differences exist of which the theory takes any account, work at different rates. The situation is therefore entirely symmetrical, from which it follows that if A works faster than B, B must work faster than A. Since this is impossible, the theory must be false. Since I wish in this book to concentrate on The Question, and let the reader judge the cogency of any answer that may be offered (none has been offered yet), I put this in more extended form, to anticipate as far as possible comments which are not answers; but I think it will be realised that The Question could have been put as briefly as The Argument (it is in fact summarised in the Introduction) and that a valid answer would be equally brief.

THE QUESTION

According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper,9 two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates. In mathematical terms, the intervals, dt and dt', which they record between the same two events are related by the Lorentz transformation, according to which dt ≠ dt'. Hence one clock must work steadily at a slower rate than the other. The theory, however, provides no indication of which clock that is, and the question inevitably arises: How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to appear to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. ‘Thence’ [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] ‘we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.’ Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?

"Science at the Crossroads", H.Dingle, pp.45-6

Swanzsteve 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is excellent material. Thanks for posting it.

BTW - The answer to Dingle's last question that you posted is that the clock at the equator is constantly being accelerated. Just before that, Einsteinn noted that a clock traveling in a "smooth arc" with respect to an intertial frame of reference and returns to its starting position must be found to be slow. As travel in a smooth arc is an accelerated frame of reference, the issue must be the acceleration. (I will not claim that this answers the overall question of which clock is slower when both move inertially, as that is a more fundamental and much harder to answer query. On that issue I stand by me previous answers and that USENET posting of mine that I have cited.) --EMS | Talk 14:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this doesn't answer Dingle's question, he excludes factors, not covered by the theory:- "...[i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion].... Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" Swanzsteve 21:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to Dingle's question as stated above is usually answered by stating that his interpretation of relativity is erronous. This is basically the approach of McCrae and Whitrow. It is repeated by I.J. Good in a series of papers in the journal Physics Essays. Good claims that Einstein made a "slip" is his 1905 paper which was used and interpreted by numerous textbook writers to mean that Einstein actually meant that the equatorial clock runs slow compared to the one at the pole. Dingle referred to this same statement calling it "a most regrettable error". In his note above EMS insists that Einstein was right in making this error, which I. J. Good calls a slip on Einstein's part, because Good in defending the theory against Dingle, thinks the slip does not follow from the theory. Yet it is the basis for the twin paradox. EMS asserts that what Einstein said is true, yet a well qualified mathematican, I. J. Good says that this does not follow form the mathematics of the special theory of relativity and says that Einstein made a slip in his exposition. So it would appear that Dingle was right all along.Electrodynamicist 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The truly odd thing is that Einstein actually was wrong about a clock at the poles going faster: Under general relativity the Earth being oblate (or fatter at the equator) makes it so that the velocity time dilation at the equator is eqaul to the increased gravitational time dilation at the poles. However, within a totally SR context Einstein was correct.

As for Good's allegation of a "slip": I do not see that as being worth much without being published in a respected scientific publication. --EMS | Talk 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you are agreeing that Einstein was wrong, and that the basis of the entire argument is a mistake in his 1905 paper?Electrodynamicist 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I am saying that the argument in the 1905 paper was correct and insightful, but that additional issues arose when Einstein did the general theory (starting in 1907) which overrode that conclusion.

To be more specific: Let's take a perfectly spherical and rigid object without a significant gravitaional field and rotate it as a very high rate of speed. In this case, a clock on the sphere at the eqautor will go slower than one at the poles, just as descibed in the 1905 article. The problem is that the Earth is not perfectly spherical and has a substantial gravitational field. That is why the comsiderations of the general theory cancel out those of the special theory in the case of the Earth itself. --EMS | Talk 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)